I would like to start a drive for all Members to go online to the FCC website and make a government complaint demanding that all Cable and Satelite providers in the USA be required to provide all programming in HDTV. Why should the public be foreced to pay for HD when it is the FCC that forced us all to buy HDTV's?

According to present statistics 75% of all residences now have at least one HDTV. In fact it was the FCC, a government agency, that has forced USA citizens to purchase HDTV's, and It is required that all Over the Air (OTA) providers transmit HD signals. So Why should cable and Satelite providers, be allowed to charge for HD Content? The citizens of the USA are being held hostage by a monopoly that was created by the Federal Government.

Just another excuse for the cable cos to charge another fee. Now that the technology has been upgraded, they should phase out analog feeds and just provide the digital and/or HD versions. HD where available at no additional cost. No need to offer a choice between analog or digital except to charge a fee. And Charter even charges a retransmission fee for the locals that I don't need because I have an antenna.

I would like to start a drive for all Members to go online to the FCC website and make a government complaint demanding that all Cable and Satelite providers in the USA be required to provide all programming in HDTV. Why should the public be foreced to pay for HD when it is the FCC that forced us all to buy HDTV's?

According to present statistics 75% of all residences now have at least one HDTV. In fact it was the FCC, a government agency, that has forced USA citizens to purchase HDTV's, and It is required that all Over the Air (OTA) providers transmit HD signals. So Why should cable and Satelite providers, be allowed to charge for HD Content? The citizens of the USA are being held hostage by a monopoly that was created by the Federal Government.

Man, are you confused. The FCC didn't force you to buy a HDTV. The FCC doesn't require OTA stations to transmit HD signals. The FCC did mandate that most all OTA broadcasts transition to digital, but not necessarily to HD. Converter boxes were and are available to convert these new digital signals for viewing on an older, analog TV. In fact, many were almost free when a government supplied coupon was used.

And, BTW, my cable company provides the HD signal at no charge when the tier you have purchased includes the SD version.

I would like to start a drive for all Members to go online to the FCC website and make a government complaint demanding that all Cable and Satelite providers in the USA be required to provide all programming in HDTV. Why should the public be foreced to pay for HD when it is the FCC that forced us all to buy HDTV's?

According to present statistics 75% of all residences now have at least one HDTV. In fact it was the FCC, a government agency, that has forced USA citizens to purchase HDTV's, and It is required that all Over the Air (OTA) providers transmit HD signals. So Why should cable and Satelite providers, be allowed to charge for HD Content? The citizens of the USA are being held hostage by a monopoly that was created by the Federal Government.

Many of your facts are wrong. The FCC, a government agency, has NOT forced any citizens to purchase HDTV's, and the FCC does NOT require any Over the Air (OTA) providers to transmit HD signals. The requirement was that most OTA stations broadcast a digital signal and not an analog signal. You had an opportunity to get two coupons for converter boxes so you could continue to use your analog TVs.

One could argue that the FCC forced us into:
a) Buying a TV with a digital tuner (not an HDTV)
b) Getting converter boxes. Basic boxes were free or nearly free with coupons....but what if you had more than 2 TVs? (We do. I had to track down extra converter boxes on Ebay)
c) Doing without broadcast TV (our older TVs work fine with cable or satellite, and work with a VCR or DVD player).
Having never owned an HDTV, I don't know what I'm missing. That's probably a blessing.

I would like to start a drive for all Members to go online to the FCC website and make a government complaint demanding that all Cable and Satelite providers in the USA be required to provide all programming in HDTV. Why should the public be foreced to pay for HD when it is the FCC that forced us all to buy HDTV's?

According to present statistics 75% of all residences now have at least one HDTV. In fact it was the FCC, a government agency, that has forced USA citizens to purchase HDTV's, and It is required that all Over the Air (OTA) providers transmit HD signals. So Why should cable and Satelite providers, be allowed to charge for HD Content? The citizens of the USA are being held hostage by a monopoly that was created by the Federal Government.

You can get FTA Satellite with just buying a Receiver,Dish, and LNB and the rest is up to you. Same goes for OTA reception...

...Why should the public be foreced to pay for HD when it is the FCC that forced us all to buy HDTV's...

Uh, nobody's forcing you to subscribe to a pay TV service. Additionally, nobody's forcing you to even buy a TV - HD or otherwise. I know several people who do not have or want a television, and they're living perfectly happy lives.

If you want a standard def TV, go to a thrift store. Most such shops are overflowing with standard definition televisions available at a very low cost. If HDTV wasn't such a popular invention, you wouldn't see all these old sets in perfect working order for sale.

Uh, nobody's forcing you to subscribe to a pay TV service. Additionally, nobody's forcing you to even buy a TV - HD or otherwise. I know several people who do not have or want a television, and they're living perfectly happy lives.

If you want a standard def TV, go to a thrift store. Most such shops are overflowing with standard definition televisions available at a very low cost. If HDTV wasn't such a popular invention, you wouldn't see all these old sets in perfect working order for sale.

Good example of entitlement thinking. When I was young, after riding the dinosaur home from school, I'd be thrilled to watch TV. That is, broadcast TV, from our rooftop antenna. Early on, it was black and white, in mono.
Once the station was tuned in and the horizontal and vertical knobs were set, we had free entertainment (after the cost of the TV and antenna).

Now we get (free) digital TV (high def, if we want it, set top "rabbit ears" work just fine (if you are in a metropolitan area), and a converter box will bring in extra sub channels. HD is far from necessary, or required.

I would like to see cable companies eliminate all analog service including limited basic and also stop carrying SD digital versions of HD channels. There should be only one copy of each channel, the HD one (except in the west when only the east feed is available in HD). I don't understand why cable companies use SD boxes that are not capable of downrezzing 11080i or 720p to 480i. OTA converter boxes do, as do DVD recorders and SD digital tvs. The HD channels should be carried in clear QAM.

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!! And now the deadline has been extended again!

I was browsing in a pawn shop one day and they had a large selection of tube tvs. Prices ranged from $25-$45. 2 of them had digital tuners (the front said SDTV).

Does the law still require warning labels on tvs that don't have a digital tuner? None of the analog tvs had a warning sticker.

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!! And now the deadline has been extended again!

Does the law still require warning labels on tvs that don't have a digital tuner? None of the analog tvs had a warning sticker.

No. TVs without ATSC tuners are not allowed to be sold at retail so any TVs without tuners being sold are used. I don't recall any law stating that if I sold my 27" inch tube TV from 2006 that I must inform the buyer that it doesn't have a digital tuner in it.

No. TVs without ATSC tuners are not allowed to be sold at retail so any TVs without tuners being sold are used. I don't recall any law stating that if I sold my 27" inch tube TV from 2006 that I must inform the buyer that it doesn't have a digital tuner in it.

It would not be called a TV, it would be called a Monitor. And yes, they can be sold, as long as it states that it does not have the capability of tuning in tv stations, and that you have to use a third party device to do so.

I would like to see cable companies eliminate all analog service including limited basic and also stop carrying SD digital versions of HD channels. There should be only one copy of each channel, the HD one (except in the west when only the east feed is available in HD). I don't understand why cable companies use SD boxes that are not capable of downrezzing 11080i or 720p to 480i. OTA converter boxes do, as do DVD recorders and SD digital tvs. The HD channels should be carried in clear QAM.

Never going to happen, due to there are more non-hd sets still being used, than hd capable sets. Also, about 95% of the people out there do not care, nor do they even realize that they are not watching HD programming, even though they are in front of a hd set at times.

I have not idea what the percent is but my brother has no idea whether he is watching HD or SD and could care less. He lives with my 96 year old mother who will not watch anything in standard definition and can instantly tell the difference when she enters the room and he is watching SD. She will pick up the remote and change to the HD channel if one is available for the program he is watching. Pretty funny.

Greg, I'm not being argumentative ... do you have any support for that fact? Although my circle of associates is likely different from yours, I'd have said it was more like 15%.

Just before this years Super Bowl the HD Guru quoted Nielsen as saying:

Quote:

Surveys show about 1 in 5 HDTV owners end up NOT watching the big game or other programs in high def due to improper setup (source: The Nielsen Co.).

Back in November 2010 Nielsen said:

Quote:

HD TVs Now the Majority, but HD Viewing Lags Behind

Now in 56 percent of U.S. households, High Definition television is one of the most quickly adopted consumer entertainment technologies of the past 20 years, but true HD viewing is still far eclipsed by viewing of standard definition television.

Only 13 percent of total day viewing on cable and 19 percent of viewing on broadcast television is “true HD” viewing, which requires an HD television and HD tuner that are tuned to an HD channel. In other words, despite the billions of dollars that Americans have spent buying high definition TVs, more than 80 percent of television viewing is still a standard definition experience. The reasons for this are various:
- 44 percent of homes either do not have an HD set or an HD service.
- Because most HD homes have at least one non-HD TV set, about one-third of programming is viewed on a standard set.
- And even on HD sets, about 20 percent of viewing is through non-HD feeds.

I have not idea what the percent is but my brother has no idea whether he is watching HD or SD and could care less. He lives with my 96 year old mother who will not watch anything in standard definition and can instantly tell the difference when she enters the room and he is watching SD. She will pick up the remote and change to the HD channel if one is available for the program he is watching. Pretty funny.

Ok, so I upconvert VHS to 1920x1080. Is that HDTV? On a more reasonable example I take a 1980s NTSC broadcast grade video tape and upconvert it. How about an old beat up 16mm print transferred to 1920x1080? Are these now HDTV?

The point is mandating a pixel framework does not ensure a true HDTV quality image. Even if the FCC did mandate say 1920x1080, that doesn't mean you will get true HD quality. What's next? The FCC approves all scripts prior to production to make sure the public is not exposed to crappy TV shows?

Take the McDonalds lawsuit for instance. Due to some idiot who spilt coffee on their lap, now their is a warning on coffee cups that sta in English and Spanish "Warning. Contentsmay be hot."

I think you should do a bit more reading on that case before you bring it up like this again. It was a legitimate case, and the woman was scarred for life from 3rd degree burns from coffee. The McDonalds had been warned on many occasions that their coffee was too hot for health department standards. Not to mention that she didn't even sue for that much money, the Jury/Judge decided to give her more than she asked for because of McDonald's negligence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregzoll

As for the label, it was only during the transistion. Now you do not even see it on sets.

You dont' see that label anymore because it has to include a ATSC tuner in order to be called a TV. Otherwise it has to be labelled as a monitor. Back then they were still selling TVs from previous model years, they didn't make them stop calling them TVs so they just forced them to put a disclaimer on them stating that they would not work with ATSC signals.

As far as the original poster goes yes he got many things wrong. However, I think he is on the right track. What the FCC needs to do is decide that all agreements for a channel should include both SD and HD rights to the channel. That way there doesn't have to be new negotiations and bickering every time a new channel goes HD. Or you don't have channels holding HD versions captive in order to get other channels carried etc.

If DirecTV has a contract to carry BBC America then they should be able to carry it in HD or SD or both if they are both available. It should be up to DirecTV to decide which one. BBC America shouldnt be able to force DirecTV to sign a new contract for more money just to get access to the HD version. Streaming rights, on demand, etc could all still be negotiated seperately but I think channel carriage itself should just be all or none.

There's potentially a lot more bandwidth required to carry both formats. It seems reasonable there'd be different contract terms or costs to reflect that. You certainly don't want the local distribution point doing down-scaling of HD to SD (as most do a crappy job of it).

At some point the originator of the channel has to decide what level of 'holding out' ends up being more harm than good. Truth be told, most of the content is crap, so it not being available in HD ain't gonna help it. And my local provider trying to strong-arm me into upgrading to a higher pricing tier to get the same crap in HD vs SD is likewise not going to work.

It's like Nero fiddling, they're all quibbling over stupid crap like this while streaming is coming in and killing them.